(Phnom Penh): In modern border warfare, there are two battlefields. One is visible to the naked eye: the use of heavy weapons and fighter jets, the destruction of ancient Khmer temples, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. This is the battlefield where violence speaks openly.
The other battlefield is invisible: telephone diplomacy, official statements, and carefully crafted diplomatic language filled with references to “respect for international law” and “desire for peace.” Yet on the ground, these words are contradicted by continued military force, as weapons are used to speak in place of sincerity.
Today, Cambodia stands squarely between these two battlefields—between Thailand’s soft diplomatic language on the international stage and the harsh reality on the ground, where force is used in direct contradiction to those words.
On December 18, 2025, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that the Cambodia–Thailand border conflict is undermining ASEAN unity and that no party benefits from this confrontation. He called on both sides to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible.
However, for Cambodia—and for those who still believe that international law must carry real meaning—the central question is more profound: If the world resolves disputes based on interests rather than moral principles, where does genuine justice come from for a small country like Cambodia?
When the World Does Not Operate on Pure Justice, What Must Cambodia Do?
One reality must be acknowledged without illusion: many states, especially powerful ones, rarely act without calculating their political and strategic interests. The United Nations—long regarded as a forum for justice—is itself constrained by political deadlock, particularly within the Security Council.
Yet this does not mean that justice is unattainable. It means that justice does not arrive as a gift. It must be built deliberately, strategically, and patiently, even when support comes from friendly nations that value fairness.
For Cambodia, the “true mechanism of justice” needed to emerge from war and safeguard the country’s future is not a single institution or actor. It is a system founded on four essential pillars:
- Evidence—including videos, documentation, and maps that cannot be erased or credibly denied
- Legal frameworks that cannot be ignored indefinitely
- Political cost and international credibility, which force violators to pay a reputational price
- Time and patience, which transform recorded facts into lasting justice
Thailand’s Soft Diplomacy Versus the Reality of Military Force
The renewed conflict, which escalated from December 7, 2025, unfolded despite Cambodia’s restraint during the initial 24 hours. Thailand deployed F-16 and Gripen fighter jets, heavy artillery, tanks, armored vehicles, rocket systems, mortars, and tens of thousands of troops across multiple fronts, launching attacks into Cambodian territory. These actions caused mass displacement and resulted in civilian casualties.
At the same time, Thailand employed diplomatic language accusing Cambodia of initiating attacks and claiming a right to self-defense.
While the President of the United States and the ASEAN Chair worked to mediate an end to the fighting and urged compliance with the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement, Thailand continued to speak softly in diplomacy—projecting an image of commitment to peace—while intensifying military operations on the ground. Fighter jets were reportedly used to destroy Cambodian infrastructure, including buildings, bridges, roads, and ancient Khmer temples such as Ta Krabey and Ta Moan.
This contradiction between “words on stage” and “actions on the ground” is not an isolated incident. It is a recurring political tactic: diplomacy used as a shield to delay and dilute international pressure, despite the well-known truth that paper cannot conceal fire forever.
Casey Barnett, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia, wrote publicly that Bangkok’s actions amounted to an act of aggression against Cambodian territory, drawing parallels to Thailand’s invasion of Cambodia in 1941.
During that year, as World War II engulfed the globe, Thailand—aligned with Imperial Japan—invaded Cambodian territory and occupied several Khmer provinces under the pretext of border incidents. After Japan’s defeat, those territories were returned to Cambodia in accordance with international law, confirming that the invasion had no legal legitimacy.
The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Not Just Tragedy, but Irrefutable Evidence
Damage to cultural heritage in conflict zones is not merely an emotional or historical loss—it is a matter of international law.
When protected cultural sites are damaged during war, the consequences extend far beyond symbolism. Such destruction fuels global outrage and becomes a powerful accelerant in legal and diplomatic proceedings.
The destruction of ancient temples generates clear, verifiable evidence of violations that perpetrators cannot credibly deny. It demonstrates unequivocally that the acts occurred on Cambodian territory, as recognized by internationally accepted maps and legal frameworks.
Every shattered stone, every ruined structure struck by bombs or shells, is not meaningless debris. Each fragment can become a legal exhibit—a future indictment under international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict.
ASEAN: A Diplomatic Battlefield That Cannot Be Dominated Unilaterally
Why did Wang Yi emphasize “ASEAN unity” so strongly?
Because ASEAN, though not an international court, is a critical source of regional legitimacy and recognition. When ASEAN determines that a party is escalating tensions or violating peace agreements, the consequences extend far beyond statements.
They affect investment confidence, tourism, cross-border trade, military partnerships, and international diplomatic space.
Recent developments suggest ASEAN is strengthening its monitoring mechanisms, including technical support and satellite-based information to assist the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT). Such capabilities can capture ground realities in the form of images and data that are extremely difficult for violators to dispute.
When China Plays a Role, Cambodia’s Hope Becomes Clearer
China’s position, articulated consistently by its diplomats, shows a clear effort to maintain impartiality while emphasizing the urgency of a ceasefire and negotiated settlement.
This stance is not driven by sentiment, but by strategic logic: preserving regional stability and preventing ASEAN fragmentation, which could destabilize the broader balance of power in Southeast Asia.
Some may confuse motives with outcomes, but Cambodia must not. In international politics, the crucial question is not why a power acts, but what result can be achieved. In this context, Cambodia can derive tangible benefit from China’s interest in a stable, unified ASEAN.
Thus, the core question is not whether China acts out of goodwill, but how Cambodia can align peace and justice with the strategic interests of influential actors. When Cambodia’s objectives converge with regional stability, peace becomes the most rational choice for all parties involved.
Conclusion
The world does not offer a “pure court of justice” for small nations. Great powers pursue interests, and the United Nations faces political constraints. Yet justice has not disappeared.
Justice is not granted—it is constructed.
It is built through evidence, law, time, and patience.
This is why Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s statement that “no one benefits from war” is not a gesture of consolation. It is a strategic signal: in the 21st century, victory by force carries an increasingly high price—one that aggressors must ultimately pay under the weight of real justice grounded in international law.
